PHAEDO: IMMORTALITY OF SOULIn the dialogue Phaedo Plato discusses the immortality of the soul. He presents four different arguments to prove the fact that although the body of the human perishes after death; the soul still exists and remains eternal. Firstly, he explains the Argument from Opposites that is about the forms and their existence in opposite forms. His second argument is Theory of Recollection which assumes that each and every information that one has in his/her mind is related to information and plays an important role in remembering. While trying to convince his readers, Plato proposes another argument claiming that the soul and the body are different forms. While the body is visible and mortal, the soul is invisible and immortal. He suggests that although the body dies and decays, the soul continues to exist. This is called Affinity Argument. Lastly, Plato uses his most convincing argument to prove the immortality of the soul. In this argument Plato uses his Theory of Forms. He explains that every quality participate in its form. In his first argument Argument from Opposites, Plato explores the idea of life and death and their relation to each other. He declares that there is a cycle which allows everything to come out of its opposite. He suggests that: “Between each of those pairs of opposites there are two processes: from the one to the other and then again from the other to the first” (71b). He tries to emphasize that “living comes from the dead and the dead from living” (72b). Therefore, after one dies, the soul does not cease to exist. The soul continues to live and comes to life again. After clearing his thoughts on opposites, he begins his theory of recollection. He uses this theory in order to convince his readers in believing that the soul is immortal and has already existed before coming to the world. He suggests that human beings recollect what they have forgotten during birth. He says that “Our souls existed apart from the body...

YOU MAY ALSO FIND THESE DOCUMENTS HELPFUL

...﻿Plato: Knowledge, and Immortality of the Soul
Reading this selection was a bit confusing since Socrates is the one who is talking and not Plato himself, I quickly realize that Plato was a pupil of Socrates so it would only make sense to explain your beliefs through the words of the very person who instilled this truth within you. To start off, I would like to bring up “The Divided Line”. The diagram shown first divides, to my understanding, the world as it is from the world as we perceive it. It then divides them into two subcategories, dividing the world as it is, or the “visible” world into, real objects and ideas or the imagination, shadows. The world as we perceive it, which is the intelligible world, is also divided into intelligence and knowledge otherwise known as lower forms and the good. To me, this division does not clarify distinction between the two. We’ll never really know the world as it really is since we’re limited to our senses and to what we can only see or hear. We’re dependent on our perception because they are what shapes us and what makes us draw conclusions and gain knowledge, therefore I believe the division is not clear. They both go hand in hand though, that’s for sure, and I just think dividing them into two worlds really throws off the reader. The allegory of the cave was very interesting to me, and sort of ironic how the one who was freed and finally seen the world for how...

...Dao Le
Prof. Mark Cronin
HU 102 - HD
April 2, 2012
The Immortality of the Soul in Plato’s Phaedo
Among Plato’s dialogues, which serve to honor the realm of philosophy in general and Socrates’s life in particular, the Phaedo dramatically and poignantly portrays the death scene of Socrates. The Phaedo evokes such tragic sentiments of pity and fear while at the same time glorifies Socrates as the martyr for the truth. He dies because of human’s injustice yet faces his own death with extraordinary serenity and fearlessness; he devotes his whole life for philosophy and in fact practices it until the last minutes. In this dialogue, the philosophical discussion is about the soul. However, as a dualist, for the most part Socrates takes for granted the existence of the soul while arguing for the immortality of the soul, which eventually turns to a conclusion that the soul does survive the death of the body and it is immortal.
On the opening of the Phaedo, Socrates’s readiness to die and his astounding composure before his death utterly surprise both his friends and the audience: “the man appeared happy in both manner and words as he died nobly and without fear” (Plato 58e). As Cicero says, Socrates at his death “spoke in language which made him seem not as one thrust out to die but as one ascending to the heavens” (Ahrensdorf 1). The reason he acts in such...

...the tripartite soul, in Republic.
Plato’s espousal of a tripartite conception of the ‘soul’ as displayed in The Republic, offers an interesting and valuable account of the human psyche, and for the motivational factors that can influence individual conduct. By virtue of searching for why a man should follow courses of action that are seen to be ‘just’, Plato compliments his ethical answers by establishing a psychological structure that shows that conflict predominantly occurs during our decision making as moral agents. We can also see in The Republic a progression of the soul from his earlier, more primitive account, that saw that man could only act in his best interests (even if these were subsequently flawed). Plato has developed his arguments considerably so as to take into account that there may be lower order appetites and desires that can obfuscate and subvert reason, and that this is the reason why people may error with unjust actions.
As a philosophical treatise, it is to be commended for appreciating the complexity of human motivations, however given our contemporary biological knowledge we can see that the simplified composition of the ‘soul’ espoused by Plato may be untenable. Also, by virtue of the soul being a conglomerate of three distinct forces, this raises philosophical issues regarding the soul’s immortality (that has been...

...compelling is the city-soul analogy and to what extent does the picture of “Platonic justice” that emerges from it differ from conventional justice?
Much has been written about the inadequacy of the city-soul analogy in establishing what justice is, and further about how Plato fails to adequately connect his vision of justice to the conventional one and so is unable to address the original challenge. I mean to show that the city-soul analogy is in fact compelling, or at least that is it sufficiently adequate to allow us to move on to a discussion of how Platonic justice compares to conventional justice. At that point I will attempt to show that Platonic justice is relevant to the challenge posed to Socrates, and that despite objections to the contrary the Platonic and conventional views are sufficiently aligned to allow Socrates to conclude that he has shown that it is better to be just than unjust.
Vlastos, and others, argue that describing the city as just is simply a generalization about its members, and so the city is not just in the same way that a person is just. I wish to argue, as Wilson does, that there are other grounds for Plato to attribute justice to the city. As Wilson puts it, “[Plato’s] central question is not the analytical philosopher’s question ‘What does ‘justice’ mean?’, but the substantial question ‘What is justice?’”. Thus, it is wrong to criticize the Republic as one would...

...care less about, but that my whole concern is not to do anything unjust or impious” (32c-e). Here, Socrates shows how he refused to do something that he believes to be unjust. Relating this back to his situation in Crito, Socrates was being punished for being unjust, thus putting him in the same position as Leon. In Crito, he shows his obligation to obey the Law of Athens, even if that meant he was going to stop philosophizing as well as being wrongfully executed.
In Phaedo, Cebes and Socrates have a long a thorough conversation of the existence of the soul. Cebes’s argument is that the soul is recycled through different bodies. However, the more times the soul is reused, then more it is damaged. Cebes believes that when the soul eventually runs out, it will result in the death of a birth. He finishes his argument by telling Socrates that unless you can prove that the soul is immortal, every man must be fearful of his soul and what will happen to it if it is reensouled. Thus, if anyone was to face death with confidence would be considered unwise.
Socrates follows up with his New Method of Hypothesis. Here, he states that everyone is participating in a certain form, whether it’s the form of tallness, the form of beautiful, etc.: “I assume the existence of a Beautiful, itself, of a good and a Great and all the rest” (100b). He believes that the form of Beautiful is made up of...

...SOUL
The question of the truth and knowledge of soul and its peculiarity in form is a highly debated issue in philosophy. Does the soul exist? How can one find their souls? Since the soul is not physical, can we connect with it? Numerous theories of nature and existence of the soul have come up as an attack on the belief in its existence after death.
In his Republic, Plato argues that thesoul consists of three basic energies which animate human beings: Reason, Emotion, and Appetite. Reason is given the greatest value, while Emotion and especially Appetite are regarded as the lower passions. The soul that is ordered is governed by Reason, and therefore keeps one’s emotions and one’s appetites under control. The lower passions must submit to the dictates of Reason. According to Plato, the soul is placed inside the body at birth, after it has travelled from the realm of the forms. When it arrives in the body, it forgets the forms which enable a person to be moral and live a meaningful life.
Plato’s idea sounds convincing. However, a soul can be many different things depending on where you live, religion or beliefs you adhere to. For me it’s an interchangeable work of some sort of spirit. In fact, not because it sounds so attractive doesn’t mean it exists. That might be the very reason why it was invented...

...﻿Alexandra Ayala
Philo 101 (10:05-11:30)
Plato (Phaedo)
Take Home Exam
I.
1.) True; Simmias uses the theory of recollection in his argument against Socrates about the soul and it having immortality, or not. He uses an analogy of an instrument to represent the body, and the instrument’s attunement to represent the soul. He makes a stand that if the body of an instrument can be destroyed, which will then cause the attunement to also be destroyed, then isn’t that saying the same for the relationship of the body and its soul? (72e-80c)
2.) True; in order for the attunement or harmony within an instrument can work perfectly and in tune, the instrument must be put together correctly and in perfect harmonious measure.
3.) False; Socrates states that there is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable discourse, not hate mankind. However, those that do hate reasonable discourse, are objectionable and nonproductive, but by no mean the greatest evil. The greatest evil are those who hurt, torture, and destroy others for their own selfish reasons or for no reason at all, just because they can. Reasonable discourse is the refined and ideal way to resolve differences and problems. (89d-e) (...but first there is a certain experience we must be careful to avoid...That we must not become misologues, as people become misanthropes. There is no greater evil one can suffer than to hate reasonable...

...Plato’s “An Argument for Dualism from ‘Alcibiades I,’” he discusses the idea that man is one of three things: soul, body, or both together forming a whole. In his dialogue between Socrates and Alcibiades, Plato argues that neither the body, nor the union of soul and body is man. This leads him to claim that either man has no real existence or the soul is man. Plato’s assertion directs the reader to the conclusion of his argument, which is to prove that the soul is man.
This argument begins when Plato has Socrates pose the question of what we are as humans and what is in fact doing the talking and hearing between people. He then moves on to discuss that the user is not the same as the things that he uses. In this segment of the argument Plato uses the example of a shoemaker and harper to demonstrate his intention. He explains that a shoemaker may use a variety of tools for cutting, but the tool used, is not the same as the user of the tools. Likewise, the harp needs to be differentiated from the harper. Employing this same example, Plato moves on to rationalize another purpose for his conclusion. Since the user is not the same as the things he uses, the question of whether the shoemaker and harper need to be distinguished from their hands and feet is asked. This thought is raised because their hands and feet are also features that they use. Because of this...